· 2020-01-02 · route 16 priority corridor study chelsea and everett, massachusetts project...

Second St

Spring St

Route 16 Priority Corridor Study Chelsea and Everett, Massachusetts

Route 16 Priority Corridor Study

Chelsea and Everett, Massachusetts

Project Manager Seth Asante Project Principal Mark Abbott Data Analysts Benjamin Erban Kathy Jacob Graphics Kenneth Dumas Kim DeLauri Cover Design Jane Gillis Editor David Davenport The preparation of this document was supported by Federal Highway Administration through MPO 3CPL FFY2019 Contract #105757 MPO §5303 FFY2019 Contract #106374. Central Transportation Planning Staff Directed by the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization. The MPO is composed of state and regional agencies and authorities, and local governments. November 2019

Route 16 Priority Corridor Study: Chelsea and Everett, Massachusetts November 2019

Page 2 of 104


Page 3 of 104

Abstract

The Route 16 Priority Corridor Study focuses on one of the locations identified in the Needs Assessment for Charting Progress to 2040, the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) endorsed in 2015. The LRTP is used to guide investment decisions regarding transportation infrastructure improvements in the Boston region. The MPO prioritized this location for study after considering a number of factors: the need to address poor safety conditions and traffic congestion; the desire to enhance multimodal transportation; and the potential for recommendations from the study to be implemented. This report details the existing conditions, assesses safety and operational problems, discusses options for improvements, and makes recommendations for implementing improvements. The recommendations, if implemented, would transform the roadway into a more pedestrian- and bicyclist-friendly roadway, improve safety at high-crash locations, make traffic flow and operations efficient, support the vision of connecting the neighborhoods to places such as schools and local businesses, and promote multimodal transportation.


Page 4 of 104

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ............................................................................. 9 ES.1 Background ............................................................................ 9

ES.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................... 9

ES.3 Proposed Improvements ........................................................... 10 ES3.1 Short-Term and Medium-Term Improvements ........................ 11

ES3.2 Long-Term Improvements ............................................... 13

ES.4 Conclusion ........................................................................... 15 Chapter 1—Introduction ...................................................................... 17

1.1 Origin of Study ...................................................................... 17

Chapter 2—Study Location ................................................................... 19 2.1 Selection Process .................................................................. 19

2.2 Study Goals and Objectives ....................................................... 20

Chapter 3—Roadway Characteristics ...................................................... 21 3.1 Roadway and Study Area ......................................................... 21

3.2 Signalized Intersections ............................................................ 21

3.2.1 Route 16 and Lewis Street Intersection ............................... 21 3.2.2 Route 16 and Second Street/Garvey Street Intersection ............ 22

3.2.3 Route 16 and Spring Street Intersection .............................. 22

3.2.4 Route 16 and South Ferry Street/Terminal Street .................... 23 3.2.5 Route 16 and Vine Street Intersection ................................. 23

3.2.6 Route 16 and Vale Street Intersection ................................. 23

3.2.7 Route 16 and Everett Avenue Intersection ............................ 24 3.2.8 Route 16 and Union Street Intersection ............................... 24

3.2.9 Route 16 and Washington Avenue Intersection ...................... 25

3.2.10 Route 16 and Webster and Garfield Avenues Intersection ......... 25 3.3 Sidewalks, Crosswalks, and Wheelchair ramps ................................ 26

3.3.1 Sidewalks .................................................................. 26

3.3.2 Crosswalks ................................................................ 26 3.3.3 Wheelchair Ramps ....................................................... 27

3.4 Street Lights ......................................................................... 27


Page 5 of 104

3.5 Land Use ............................................................................. 27

Chapter 4—Planned Projects and Studies ................................................ 29 4.1 Reconstruction of Ferry Street, South Ferry Street, and a Portion of Elm

Street ................................................................................. 29

4.2 Everett: Deck Replacements for Sweetser Circle Bridges .................... 29

4.3 Sweetser Circle Improvements ................................................... 29 4.4 Everett Transit Study ............................................................... 30

4.5 Bridge Replacements: Revere Beach Parkway (Route 16) over the Malden River (Woods Memorial Bridge) and over MBTA and Rivers Edge Drive ... 30

4.6 Reconstruction of Beacham Street in Everett ................................... 30 4.7 Silver Line/BRT Construction ..................................................... 30

4.8 Chelsea Greenway ................................................................. 31

4.9 Bridge Betterment, Route 1 over Arlington Street and 5th Street/MBTA Railroad/Spruce Street ............................................................. 31

4.10 Reconstruction on Washington Avenue from Revere Beach Parkway to Heard Street ......................................................................... 31

4.11 Reconstruction on Route 16 (Revere Beach Parkway) and Washington Avenue ............................................................................... 31

4.12 Reconstruction on Broadway (Route 107) From City Hall Avenue to the Revere City Line .................................................................... 32

4.13 Road Safety Audit, Route 16 at Garfield and Webster Avenues ............. 32

4.14 Lower Mystic Regional Working Group Study .................................. 32

Chapter 5—Data Collection .................................................................. 33 5.1 Data Collection ...................................................................... 33

5.2 Daily Traffic Volumes ............................................................... 33

5.3 Daily Truck Volumes ............................................................... 33 5.4 Turning Movement Volumes ...................................................... 34

5.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes ................................................. 34

5.6 Spot Speed Data.................................................................... 35 5.7 Signal Timing and Coordination Data ............................................ 36

5.8 Crash Data .......................................................................... 36

5.9 Transit Services Data .............................................................. 38 Chapter 6—Existing Conditions Analyses ................................................ 39

6.1 Safety Analysis ...................................................................... 39


Page 6 of 104

6.1.1 HSM Methodology: Predicted and Expected Crashes ............... 39

6.1.2 HSM Methodology: Monetary Value of Crashes ..................... 41 6.1.3 Analysis of Crash Diagrams ............................................. 42

6.2 Intersection and Arterial Levels of Service Analysis ........................... 42

6.2.1 Intersection Level-of-Service (LOS) Analysis ......................... 42 6.2.2 Arterial LOS Analysis .................................................... 43

6.3 Active (Nonmotorized) Transportation Modes .................................. 44

6.3.1 Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) ................................... 44 6.3.2 Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) ........................................ 45

Chapter 7—Community and Stakeholder Engagement ................................. 47 7.1 Community Survey ................................................................. 47 7.2 Advisory Task Force ............................................................... 48

Chapter 8—Deficiencies ...................................................................... 49 8.1 Pedestrian and Bicycle Concerns ................................................ 49 8.2 Safety Concerns .................................................................... 50

8.3 Traffic Operation Concerns ........................................................ 50

8.4 Traffic Signal Equipment Concerns .............................................. 51 Chapter 9—Future Conditions ............................................................... 53

9.1 Future Traffic Projections .......................................................... 53

9.2 Proposed Short- and Medium-Term Improvements ............................ 53 9.3 Proposed Long-Term Improvements ............................................. 56

9.4 Performance of the Improvements ............................................... 58

9.4.1 Arterial and Network Performance with Improvements .............. 58 9.4.2 PLOS Performance with Improvements ............................... 59

9.4.3 BLOS Performance with Improvements ............................... 59

9.4.4 Safety Impacts of Proposed Improvements ........................... 60 9.5 Regional Long-Term Strategies ................................................... 61

9.5.1 Connecting Bicycle Infrastructure (Northern Strand and Greenway) ................................................................. 61

9.5.2 Extension of Silver Line to the Orange Line Station ................. 61 9.5.3 Sullivan Square Commuter Rail Stop .................................. 62

9.5.4 Bus Service on Route 16 ................................................ 62


Page 7 of 104

Chapter 10—Conclusion and Next Steps .................................................. 63 10.1 Project Implementation ............................................................ 63 10.2 Project Development ............................................................... 63

TABLES

Table ES-1 Short- and Medium-Term Improvements .................................................... 11 Table ES-2 Long-Term Improvements .......................................................................... 14 Table 1 Peak Period Pedestrian Crossing Types .......................................................... 35 Table 2 Route 16 Crash Statistics (Five-Year Crash Summary) ................................... 37 Table 3 Potential for Safety Improvement ..................................................................... 40 Table 4 Comprehensive Costs of Crashes .................................................................... 41 Table 5 Intersection Level-of-Service Criteria ............................................................... 43 Table 6 HCM Existing Arterial Level of Service ............................................................. 44 Table 7 Short- and Medium-Term Improvements .......................................................... 54 Table 8 Long-Term Improvements ................................................................................ 57 Table 9 Measure of Effectiveness: Route 16 Signal Delay ............................................ 59 Table 10 Measure of Effectiveness: Total Network Delay ............................................. 59

FIGURES

Figure 1 Regional Map of Study Area and Nearby Roadways ...................................... 64 Figure 2 Existing Roadway Configuration ..................................................................... 65 Figure 3 Transportation Equity Map .............................................................................. 66 Figure 4 Existing Sidewalk Conditions .......................................................................... 67 Figure 5 Existing Street Lighting Conditions .................................................................. 68 Figure 6 Average Weekday Traffic Volumes ................................................................. 69 Figure 7 Average Weekday Truck Volumes .................................................................. 70 Figure 8 Weekday Peak-Hours Turning Movement Volumes ........................................ 71 Figure 9 Weekend Midday Peak-Hour Turning Movement Volumes ............................. 72 Figure 10 Weekday and Weekend Pedestrian Volumes ............................................... 73 Figure 11 Weekday and Weekend Bicycle-on-Road Volumes ...................................... 74 Figure 12 Spot Speeds and Speed Index Measurements ............................................. 75 Figure 13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Intersection Crash Clusters ............. 76 Figure 14 Observed and Predicted Crashes (2012–16) and Safety Improvement

Potentials ....................................................................................................... 77 Figure 15 Weekday AM Peak-Hour Level of Service and Delay ................................... 78 Figure 16 Weekday PM Peak-Hour Level of Service and Delay ................................... 79 Figure 17 Weekend Saturday Midday Peak-Hour Level of Service and Delay .............. 80 Figure 18 Weekend Sunday Midday Peak-Hour Level of Service and Delay ................ 81 Figure 19 Survey Questions and Number of Respondents ........................................... 82


Page 8 of 104

Figure 20 Summary of Problems and Concerns: Lewis Street to South Ferry Street .... 83 Figure 21 Summary of Problems and Concerns: Vine Street to Everett Avenue .......... 84 Figure 22 Summary of Problems and Concerns: Everett Avenue to

Washington Avenue ....................................................................................... 85 Figure 23 Summary of Problems and Concerns: Washington Avenue to Route 1 ........ 86 Figure 24 Short- and Medium-Term Improvements: Lewis Street to

South Ferry Street .......................................................................................... 87 Figure 25 Short- and Medium-Term Improvements: Vine Street to Everett Avenue ..... 88 Figure 26 Short- and Medium-Term Improvements: Everett Avenue to Washington

Avenue ........................................................................................................... 89 Figure 27 Short- and Medium-Term Improvements: Washington Avenue to Route 1 ... 90 Figure 28 Weekday AM Peak-Hour Level of Service and Delay ................................... 91 Figure 29 Weekday PM Peak-Hour Level of Service and Delay ................................... 92 Figure 30 Weekend Saturday Midday Peak-Hour Level of Service and Delay .............. 93 Figure 31 Weekend Sunday Midday Peak-Hour Level of Service and Delay ................ 94 Figure 32 Long-Term Improvements: Lewis Street to South Ferry Street ..................... 95 Figure 33 Long-Term Improvements: Vine Street to Everett Avenue ............................ 96 Figure 34 Long-Term Improvements: Everett Avenue to Washington Avenue .............. 97 Figure 35 Long-Term Improvements: Washington Avenue to Route 1 ......................... 98 Figure 36 Weekday AM Peak-Hour Level of Service and Delay ................................... 99 Figure 37 Weekday PM Peak-Hour Level of Service and Delay ................................. 100 Figure 38 Weekend Saturday Midday Peak-Hour Level of Service and Delay ............ 101 Figure 39 Weekend Sunday Midday Peak-Hour Level of Service and Delay .............. 102 Figure 40 Proposed Long-Term Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements ..................... 103 Figure 41 Long-Term Transit Strategies ...................................................................... 104

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Comments and Selection Process Appendix B: Traffic Data Collection Appendix C: Traffic Signal Data Appendix D: Traffic Safety Data Appendix E: Bus Schedules Appendix F: Level-of-Service Analysis Appendix G: Survey Comments Appendix H: MassDOT Highway Division Project Development Process


Page 9 of 104

Executive Summary

ES.1 BACKGROUND

The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) selected Route 16 between Routes 1 and 99 in the cities of Chelsea and Everett as the subject of a corridor study in federal fiscal year 2019. The study focuses on one of the locations identified in the Needs Assessment for Charting Progress to 2040, the MPO’s Long-Range Transportation Plan endorsed in 2015. The Needs Assessment is used to guide investment decisions regarding transportation infrastructure improvements in the Boston region. The MPO prioritized this location for study after considering a number of factors, including the need to address poor safety conditions and traffic congestion; desire to enhance multimodal transportation; need to maintain regional travel capacity; and the potential to implement the study recommendations. The report analyzes the existing conditions, assesses safety and operational problems in the corridor, and discusses concepts for roadway improvements.

ES.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS

Route 16 in Chelsea and Everett is a two-way, six-lane principal arterial under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT). The jurisdiction of roadway was transferred to MassDOT from the Department of Conservation and Recreation in 2017. The cities of Chelsea and Everett have jurisdiction of the crossing arterials and streets. A series of maps are appended to this report. The maps in Figures 1 and 2 show the study area and roadway configuration. The MassDOT Highway Division, cities of Chelsea and Everett, and Boston Region MPO collected and assembled the data used to assess the existing conditions and identify problems in the corridor. The data included socio-economic and demographic data; vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volumes; traffic speeds and crashes; and community input data (community survey). Figures 3 through 15 summarize the collected data. Key vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle issues and concerns were identified within the corridor. Many locations in the study area experienced a greater-than-expected number of crashes: five intersections are on the list of the Top 200 high-crash location in Massachusetts and seven intersections (including the five


Page 10 of 104

top 200 high-crash locations) are on the list of Highway Safety Improvement Program crash clusters.1 Current pedestrian and bicycle conditions include a lack of adequate sidewalk conditions, narrow pedestrian refuge areas, insufficient pedestrian crossing intervals, and obstructions in sidewalks. In addition, absence of crosswalks at some locations on Route 16, wheelchair ramps that are not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, lack of pedestrian countdown timers and detection for bicycles, and parking on sidewalks by businesses along the corridor worsens the problems.

Figures 16 through 20 describe the existing intersection levels of service (LOS). Current traffic operations include high levels of congestion, queues blocking intersections, high vehicular speeds, and drivers running red lights during peak periods. The traffic safety and operational problems include, but are not limited to outdated signal equipment such as missing signal visors and backplates, rusty signal poles, poor visibility of post-mounted signals, poor left-turn signal displays, insufficient left-turn storage, and outdated signal timing plans. Figures 21 through 24 summarize the problems identified in the corridor.

ES.3 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

MPO staff, working with an advisory task force (representatives from MassDOT and the cities of Chelsea and Everett), developed short-, medium-, and long-term improvement concepts for the corridor. MassDOT is currently implementing improvements at several locations in the corridor as part of the Encore Boston Harbor mitigation project including the Route 16 intersections at Everett Avenue, Union Street, Washington Avenue, and Webster/Garfield Avenues. In addition, road safety audits have been conducted for the Sweetser Circle and Webster/Garfield intersection because of the high number of crashes in the corridor, along with a conditional assessment of Route 16 (Revere Beach Parkway), which evaluated the existing conditions and recommended improvements. Finally, Everett is currently conducting a study evaluating Sweetser Circle improvements to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles as well as make traffic operations safer and more efficient. MPO staff reviewed the recommendations from these projects and studies and incorporated them into this study.

1 An HSIP crash cluster is a location in which the number and severity of crashes—as measured on the Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) index—ranks the location among the top five percent of crash clusters in the region. The EPDO method assigns weighted values to each crash based on whether the crash resulted in property damage (unweighted), injury (weighted by 5), or a fatality (weighted by 10).


Page 11 of 104

ES3.1 Short-Term and Medium-Term Improvements

The proposed short-term improvements address safety and operational concerns that, when implemented, will bring the roadway to MassDOT standards. They are usually low cost, relatively uncomplicated and inexpensive to implement, and require minimal design efforts. The medium-term improvements are usually low to medium cost, more complicated than their short-term counterparts did, and require more funding resources and design and engineering efforts. The recommended short- and medium-term improvements are diagramed in Figures 25 through 28 and described in Table ES-1. The intersection LOS that would result from short-term signal retiming and coordination is shown in Figures 29 through 32, and the analysis indicated that retiming the signals in the corridor would reduce delay between 10 and 30 percent during weekday AM and PM peak periods.

Table ES-1 Short- and Medium-Term Improvements

Issue Improvement Time

Frame Cost Jurisdiction

Environmental Provide routine street cleaning and trash/litter pickup Short Medium MassDOT

Congestion

Optimize traffic signal timings and coordinate signals to reduce congestion and delay Short Medium MassDOT

Congestion

Repair or replace malfunctioning vehicle detectors at signalized intersections, especially on Route 16 westbound left-turn lane at Garfield Avenue and Webster Avenue intersection. Short Low MassDOT

Congestion

Lengthen short left-turn lanes to reduce their impacts (traffic queues and drivers turning from wrong lanes) from interrupting traffic flow in the straight-through lanes. Or increase signal phase intervals of short left-turn lanes Medium Medium MassDOT

Congestion

Consider working with owner of the Car Wash located between Second Street and Spring Street to relocate the entry and exit to reduce its impacts on traffic flow on Route 16, Second Street, and Spring Street. Medium Medium MassDOT

Pedestrian safety

Make wheelchair ramps ADA-compliant by adding detectable plates Medium Medium MassDOT

Pedestrian safety

Align pedestrian signal in the southwest corner with crosswalk on Lewis Street Short Low MassDOT


Page 12 of 104



Pedestrian safety

Reposition detectable warning plates on Garfield Avenue to align better with crosswalks Short Low MassDOT

Pedestrian safety

Bring poor sidewalks to meet MassDOT standards and ADA-compliance Medium Medium MassDOT

Pedestrian safety

Widen the median opening to provide enough pedestrian refuge areas and welcoming space Medium Medium MassDOT

Pedestrian safety

Add countdown timers to help expedite pedestrian crossing at signalized intersections Medium Medium MassDOT

Pedestrian safety

Work with business owners to remove parking on sidewalks throughout the corridor Medium Medium MassDOT

Pedestrian

Add crosswalks on Route 16 at the following locations:

East leg of Route 16 at Second Street

East leg of Route 16 at South Ferry Street

West leg of Route 16 at Everett Avenue

West leg of Route 16 at Union Street Medium MassDOT MassDOT

Bicycle safety Provide bicycle detection at the signalized intersections Medium Medium MassDOT

Safety

Modify clearance intervals to MassDOT standards to address high number of angle and rear-end crashes Short Medium MassDOT

Safety

Replace or repair signal heads with missing or damaged visors and backplates Short Low MassDOT

Safety Replace incandescent signal sections with LED sections Short Low MassDOT

Safety Replace broken and straighten slanted light poles and improve street lighting Medium Medium MassDOT

Safety Upgrade all 8-inch signal lenses to 12-inch signal heads Short Low MassDOT

Safety Install stop signs and add crosswalks on Garvey Street and Terminal Street Short Low MassDOT

Safety Install advance street name and guide signs to improve wayfinding Medium Medium MassDOT

Safety

Increase police patrol and presence to reduce speeding, red light runners, and blocking intersection Short Medium

State/City Police

Safety

Reduce width of rightmost eastbound lane from Lewis Street to Second Street to prevent drivers forming two lanes (pavement restriping) Short Low MassDOT


Page 13 of 104



Safety

Narrow the width of channelized right-turn lane on Garfield Avenue to prevent drivers forming two lanes, need to consider truck movements (pavement striping) Short Low MassDOT

Safety

Realign the guide signage on Webster Avenue so it becomes visible to northbound traveling vehicles Short Low MassDOT

Safety

Trim vegetation to provide drivers with more clear view of signs and signals at the following intersection (Spring Street, Union Street, and Webster Avenue) Short Low MassDOT

Safety and operations

Consider providing split phasing for the side streets to eliminate potential conflicts between opposing vehicles (Everett, Washington, and Garfield/Webster Avenues) Medium Medium MassDOT


Provide advance intersection lane control signs on Route 16 to indicate lane configuration ahead Medium Medium MassDOT


Improve drainage systems in the corridor to reduce flooding from storms Medium Medium MassDOT

Pavement Resurface roadway Medium Medium MassDOT

Pavement Provide pavement markings to clearly show the lanes at intersections Short Low MassDOT

Pavement

Provide pavement markings to clearly show the northbound and southbound left and through lanes on Everett Avenue, Garfield Avenue, and Webster Avenue Short Low

MassDOT, Everett, and

Chelsea ADA = Americans with Disabilities Act. MassDOT = Massachusetts Department of Transportation. Source: Central Transportation Planning Staff.

ES3.2 Long-Term Improvements

The long-term improvements, usually high cost, typically require more design and engineering efforts, environmental permitting, and more funding resources. They focus on modernizing the roadway to incorporate advanced technologies and make it multimodal and pedestrian and bicycle friendly (safety, mobility, connectivity, and security). For the purposes of this study, MPO staff divided the corridor into three segments—western, middle, and eastern—and developed improvement concepts for each segment. The recommended improvements are diagramed in Figures 33 through 36 and described in Table ES-2. The LOS that would result from the improvements are shown in Figures 37 through 40. The analysis indicate that the long-term improvements would reduce signal delay during weekday AM and PM peak period by 10 percent to 30 percent.


Page 14 of 104

Table ES-2 Long-Term Improvements

Issue Improvement Cost Jurisdiction

Pedestrian and bicycle safety

Construct a multiuse path on either side of Route 16 between Lewis Street and Everett Avenue to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists safely. Add bicycle racks at convenient locations. High MassDOT

Pedestrian safety

Upgrade all sidewalks, pedestrian refuge areas, and wheelchair ramps to MassDOT standards High MassDOT

Safety Reconstruct the cobblestone median between Everett Avenue and Union Street to MassDOT standards High MassDOT

Congestion and safety

Upgrade outdated traffic signal equipment to mast-arm mounted signal heads to increase visibility High MassDOT


Study Sweetser Circle to identify options to improve safety, reduce congestion, and accommodate pedestrian and bicyclists High MassDOT


Implement an ATSCT to optimizing traffic signal timings and coordination High MassDOT


Install an exclusive northbound left-turn lane on Second Street to reduce congestion and increase safety High

MassDOT and Everett


Install exclusive left-turn lanes on the following streets to reduce congestion, left-turn conflicts, and make traffic flow efficient.

Everett Avenue Garfield Avenue Webster Avenue High

MassDOT, Everett, and

Chelsea Pedestrian safety

Install a traffic signal at Boston Street to improve safety for pedestrian crossing Route 16 High MassDOT

Environmental

Improve landscape and streetscape and more greenery along the corridor to provide a welcoming environment for all uses High MassDOT

Safety Upgrade light poles and fixtures to MassDOT standards High MassDOT

Access management

Implement access management by consolidating and sharing driveways in future development along the corridor High MassDOT

Pedestrian safety

Improve pedestrian crossings experience at Union Street intersection High MassDOT

Safety

Redesign the approach of County Road to align with the one-way street and right-turn only out of County Road. High

MassDOT and Chelsea

Safety Improve signage and wayfinding throughout the corridor High MassDOT

Congestion

Lengthen the Route 16 westbound left-turn lane to provide more storage for vehicles turning onto Webster Avenue High MassDOT

Congestion Install a traffic signal to provide access from Route 1 southbound to Route 16 eastbound High MassDOT

Congestion Add a new ramp connecting Route 16 westbound to Route 1 northbound High MassDOT


Page 15 of 104

Issue Improvement Cost Jurisdiction

Safety

Construct geometric improvements at Webster/Garfield Avenue intersection:

Move the west leg of Route 16 approximately 15 feet to the west to create more space within the intersection for left turning movements to eliminate conflicts

Consider geometric improvements to improve alignment on Webster and Garfield Avenues High MassDOT

ATSCT = Adaptive Traffic Signal Control Technology. MassDOT = Massachusetts Department of Transportation. Source: Central Transportation Planning Staff.

ES.4 CONCLUSION

The concepts developed in this study provide MassDOT, the cities of Chelsea and Everett, and other stakeholders an opportunity to review conceptual options for addressing the deficiencies in the corridor before committing design and engineering funds to a roadway improvement project. If implemented, the proposed improvements offered in this report would increase traffic safety, make traffic operations more efficient, and modernize the roadway to accommodate all users. MassDOT and the cities of Chelsea and Everett are not obligated to make these improvements, but if they were to seek improvements on this roadway, this document provides a guide to possible improvements. This study aligns with the Boston Region MPO’s goals of modernizing roadways to improve capacity and mobility by expanding the quantity and quality of walking and bicycling infrastructure; making transit service more efficient; reducing congestion; increasing safety on the region’s highway system; and preserving the transportation system.


Page 16 of 104


Page 17 of 104

Chapter 1—Introduction

1.1 ORIGIN OF STUDY

The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has been conducting studies of roadway corridors identified through the Needs Assessment of the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) as needing infrastructure improvements to address safety, mobility, and traffic operations problems.2 Municipalities in the region and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) have been receptive to these studies, which provide them with the opportunity to review conceptual options to improve a specific arterial segment before committing design and engineering funds to a project. After reviewing the options, if a proponent initiates a project that qualifies for state and federal funds, the study’s documentation may be useful to both MassDOT and the project proponent. The information provided in the study’s report is useful for completing MassDOT Highway Division’s project initiation forms, identifying problems along the corridor, justifying the need for improvements, and providing improvement concepts to advance into the preliminary design and engineering stages. MPO staff identified a number of arterial roadway segments that should be prioritized because they require maintenance, modernization, and safety and mobility improvements; these roadway segments are listed in the LRTP. To address the problems that exist in some of these arterial segments, a study was included in the federal fiscal year (FFY) 2019 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP).3 Through this study, MPO staff recommended conceptual improvements for one or more corridors, or several small sections within a corridor. MPO staff selects locations for study—considering agency, municipal, subregional, and other public feedback—and collect data, conduct technical analysis, and recommend improvements. Recommendations from the study are sent to implementing agencies, which may choose to fund improvements through various federal, state, and local sources, separately or in combination.

2 Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization, Charting Progress to 2040: The New

Long-Range Transportation Plan of the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization,

endorsed by the Boston Region MPO on July 30, 2015. 3 Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization, Unified Planning Work Program, Federal

Fiscal Year 2017, endorsed by the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization on July 28, 2016.


Page 18 of 104


Page 19 of 104

Chapter 2—Study Location

2.1 SELECTION PROCESS

On October 18, 2018, the Boston Region MPO approved the Route 16 in Chelsea and Everett study, following a selection process that involved a review of safety conditions, congestion, multimodal and regional significance of the roadway, regional equity, and the potential for implementing study recommendations.4,5,6,7,8,9 Figure 1 shows the arterial roadway segments in the study area. (All figures are included at the end of the report.) The study location was selected from a list of 44 arterial segments in 37 municipalities in the MPO region.10 A copy of the technical memorandum describing the selection process is included in Appendix A. MassDOT Highway Division District 4, the MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning, and the cities of Chelsea and Everett supported the study of Route 16. They participated by collecting data needed for the analyses, reviewing documentation of existing conditions, identifying problems, and developing improvements to mitigate the problems.

4 Safety Conditions: The location has a higher-than-average crash rate for its functional class;

contains a crash cluster that makes it eligible for HSIP funding; contains a crash location on MassDOT Highway Division’s Top High Crash Locations Report; or has a significant number of pedestrian and bicycle crashes (two or more per mile).

5 Congested Conditions: The travel time index is at least 1.3. The travel time index is the ratio of the peak-period travel time to the free-flow travel time.

6 Multimodal Significance: The roadway carries one or more bus routes or is adjacent to a transit stop or station; the roadway supports bicycle or pedestrian activities or there is a project planned that will support these activities; there is a need to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists and improve transit on the roadway; or there is a significant amount of truck traffic on the roadway serving regional commerce.

7 Regional Significance: The roadway is on the National Highway System; carries a significant portion of regional traffic (Average Daily Traffic of 20,000 vehicles or more); lies within 0.5 miles of environmental-justice transportation analysis areas or zones; or is essential for the region’s economic, cultural, or recreational development.

8 Regional Equity: To ensure that, over time, all subregions in the MPO’s planning area receive support from the MPO in the form of Unified Planning Work Program planning studies, during each funding cycle, MPO staff select no more than one location per subregion to study and choose a location in a different subregion from the location studied in the preceding cycle.

9 Implementation Potential: The study location is proposed by the jurisdictional agency or agencies for the roadway; proposed or prioritized by a Subregional group; or identified as a priority for improvement by other stakeholders.

10 Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization, Selection of FFY 2019 LRTP Priority Corridor Study Location, Technical Memorandum, October 18, 2018.


Page 20 of 104

2.2 STUDY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

MassDOT and the cities of Chelsea and Everett have shown a commitment to improving conditions as follows:

Increase safety for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists Increase the quality and quantity of walking and bicycling options Modernize the roadway and make travel more efficient and reliable Support economic vitality and livability of the communities

Toward that end, the objectives of this study were to

collect data on roadway conditions, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit users;

analyze data and identify existing problems;

determine the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders; and

develop improvement concepts to address problems and needs.


Page 21 of 104

Chapter 3—Roadway Characteristics

3.1 ROADWAY AND STUDY AREA

Route 16 is a state highway in Massachusetts. In the study area, it is called Revere Beach Parkway. Figure 2 shows the roadway’s number of lanes. In Everett, the roadway’s right-of-way (ROW) width varies between 110 and 120 feet and in Chelsea between 85 and 110 feet. This roadway serves regional and local traffic and includes several MPO transportation equity zones (Figure 3). It is a six-lane, two-way roadway classified as an urban principal arterial and part of the National Highway System program. There is no shoulder on either side for the majority of the corridor.11 The posted speed limit is 35 mph throughout the corridor.

3.2 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

Several cross streets and driveways intersect Route 16, which create safety and operations issues for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Figure 2 also shows the signalized intersections identified for study. There are 10 signalized intersections in the corridor, equipped with fully or semi- actuated traffic-control systems; however, they require updating, lack emergency preemption, and the signal heads are missing visors and backplates. The equipment, along with the existing signal timings and phasing plans are outdated and many of the signal posts are rusty. The following describes the geometry, traffic and control, and land uses surrounding the signalized intersections.

3.2.1 Route 16 and Lewis Street Intersection

Lewis Street is the first intersection to the west of the study area. A city-owned street that intersects Route 16 to form a four-leg signalized intersection (Figure 2). At the intersection, Route 16 has three through lanes on each approach and Lewis Street has one lane on each approach. Left turns are prohibited from Route 16 onto Lewis Street in either direction. The intersection is equipped with an Eagle Epac 300 M41 signal controller and has a semi-actuated and coordinated traffic-signal system with functioning pedestrian signals. The signal heads are mounted on posts and many of them lack black backplates with retroreflective yellow borders; thus, they do not fully conform to MassDOT’s current standards. Crosswalks are provided on all legs of the intersection, but the markings are faded and the median openings are narrow. All of the wheelchair ramps have detectable warning plates. It is one of the critical intersections in the corridor—congested during peak periods with high traffic volumes on Route 16 and intensive merging on the eastbound approach of Route 16—created by on-

11 Right-of-way is defined as the land or interest therein, acquired for or devoted to a highway.


Page 22 of 104

ramp traffic entering from Route 99. The land use near the intersection is residential and commercial, and the Sumner Whittier Elementary School is in the northwestern corner of the intersection. A school crossing guard helps students cross at the intersection during school openings and closings.

3.2.2 Route 16 and Second Street/Garvey Street Intersection

Second Street and Garvey Street are city-owned streets that intersect Route 16 at an oblique angle to form a five-leg signalized intersection (Figure 2). Each of the approaches on Route 16 have three travel lanes and one lane on each of the approaches from Second Street and Garvey Street. Left turns are prohibited from Route 16 onto Second Street and Garvey Street in both directions and traffic on Garvey Street is controlled by a stop sign. The Second Street intersection is equipped with an Eagle Epac 300 M51 signal controller and has an actuated and coordinated traffic-signal system with functioning pedestrian signals. The signal heads are mounted on posts and they have no backplates. Crosswalks are provided at the intersection, except on the east leg of Route 16. The crosswalk markings are faded, median openings are narrow, and some of the wheelchair ramps do not have detectable warning plates. This is a critical intersection because it handles high traffic volumes with a high percentage of trucks, and it is congested during peak periods. Many of the trucks at the intersection are entering and exiting from the industrial area located along Second Street south of the intersection. The intersection curb radii are adequate for trucks because the oblique angle on Second Street facilitate both left and right turns. The land uses adjacent to the intersection are primarily commercial and industrial.

3.2.3 Route 16 and Spring Street Intersection

Spring Street is a city-owned street that intersects Route 16 to form a four-leg signalized intersection (Figure 2). At the intersection, Route 16 has four lanes on each approach, an exclusive left-turn lane and three through lanes. Spring Street has one lane on each approach serving all traffic movements. The intersection is equipped with an Eagle Epac 300 M41 signal controller and has an actuated and coordinated traffic-signal system with functioning pedestrian signals. The signal heads are mounted on a mixture of mast-arms and post mounts; they also lack backplates. Crosswalks are provided on all legs of the intersection, but the markings are faded and the median openings are narrow or absent. The wheelchair ramps have detectable warning plates except for the one in the northeastern corner of the intersection. The intersection handles high volumes of traffic on Route 16 and it is congested during peak periods. The intersection curb radii are not adequate for truck turning movements. The land uses adjacent to the intersection are primarily commercial and their business parking spaces and needs have taken most of the sidewalk on the south side of Route 16.


Page 23 of 104

3.2.4 Route 16 and South Ferry Street/Terminal Street

South Ferry Street and Terminal Street are city-owned local roadways. South Ferry Street intersects Route 16 at an oblique angle to form a signalized intersection (Figure 2). At the same intersection, Terminal Street is under stop control and functions more as a driveway for several businesses. Each approach of Route 16 has three through lanes and an exclusive eastbound left-turn lane. Left turns are prohibited from the Route 16 westbound approach. South Ferry Street is a one-lane, one-way street for traffic heading northbound away from the intersection. The intersection is equipped with an Eagle Epac 300 M51 signal controller and has an actuated and coordinated traffic-signal system. In addition, all of the signal heads are mounted on posts and they do not have backplates. The signal lenses are a mixture of light-emitting diode (LED) and incandescent sections. The signal lenses for left-turn movements are 8-inch sections, while the other sections are 12-inch sections. The land uses in the area are mostly commercial.

3.2.5 Route 16 and Vine Street Intersection

Vine Street is a city-owned street that intersects Route 16 to form a four-leg signalized intersection (Figure 2). At the intersection, Route 16 has three through lanes on each approach and an exclusive westbound left-turn lane. Left turns are prohibited from eastbound approach of Route 16. Vine Street has one lane on each approach serving all traffic movements. The intersection is equipped with an Eagle Epac 300 M41 signal controller and has an actuated and coordinated traffic-signal system. The signal heads are a mixture of mast-arm and post mounts and they lack backplates. The signal lenses are a mixture of LED and incandescent sections. Crosswalks are provided on all legs of the intersection, but the one on the west leg of Route 16 lacks pedestrian signals with pushbuttons. In addition, the crosswalk markings are faded and the wheelchair ramps on the north side of Route 16 have no detectable warning plates. The intersection handles high traffic and truck volumes, and it is congested during peak periods. The intersection curb radii are not adequate for trucks turning right onto and out of Vine Street. The land uses in the area are mostly commercial with industrial uses located on the south side of Route 16.

3.2.6 Route 16 and Vale Street Intersection

Vale Street is a city-owned local roadway that intersects Route 16 at an oblique angle to form a three-leg signalized intersection (Figure 2). At the intersection, Route 16 has three through lanes on each approach and an exclusive westbound left-turn lane. Left turns are prohibited from the eastbound approach of Route 16. Vale Street has one lane on its approach serving all traffic movements. The intersection is equipped with an Eagle Epac 300 M51 signal controller and has


Page 24 of 104

an actuated and coordinated traffic-signal system. In addition, the signal heads are a mixture of mast-arms and post mounts and have backplates, but the signal lenses are a mixture of LED and incandescent sections. Crosswalks are provided at the intersection on the west leg of Route 16 and on Vale Street and the markings are faded. There are functioning pedestrian signals with pushbuttons, but the wheelchair ramps lack detectable warning plates. The land uses in the area are mostly commercial.

3.2.7 Route 16 and Everett Avenue Intersection

Everett Avenue is a city-owned street, which intersects Route 16 to form a four-leg signalized intersection (Figure 2). At the intersection, Route 16 has four lanes on each approach, an exclusive left-turn lane and three through lanes. Everett Avenue has one wide lane (approximately 21 feet) on each approach, but drivers form two lanes (exclusive left-turn and through/right-turn lanes) on each approach. The intersection is equipped with an Econolite ASC/3-1000 signal controller and has an actuated and coordinated traffic-signal system. The signal heads are mounted on posts and they have no backplates. There are functioning pedestrian signals at all four corners of the intersection and crosswalks are provided on all legs of the intersection except on the west leg of Route 16. The crosswalk markings are faded, the median openings are narrow or absent, and the wheelchair ramps have no detectable warning plates. The intersection handles high volumes of traffic on Route 16 and Everett Avenue and it is congested during peak periods. The intersection curb radii are adequate for trucks. The land uses adjacent to the intersection are primarily commercial and educational with the Chelsea High School located in the southeastern corner of the intersection.

3.2.8 Route 16 and Union Street Intersection

Union Street is a city-owned street that intersects Route 16 at an oblique angle to form a three-leg signalized intersection (Figure 2). Route 16 has three through lanes on each approach at the intersection while Union Street has one lane on approach serving all movements. Left turns are prohibited on the eastbound approach of Route 16 and drivers have to proceed through the intersection and use a U-turn bay to turn left. The intersection is equipped with an Eagle Epac 300 M41 signal controller and has a semi-actuated and coordinated traffic signal. The signal heads are mounted on posts and they lack backplates. There are no crosswalks on Route 16 and guardrails are blocking pedestrian access to the intersection. The crosswalk on Union Street has wheelchair ramps and detectable warning plates but is not under signal control. The land use near the intersection is primarily residential; however, the Shore Educational Collaborative is located north of the intersection.


Page 25 of 104

3.2.9 Route 16 and Washington Avenue Intersection

Washington Avenue is a city-owned street that intersects Route 16 to form a four-leg signalized intersection (Figure 2). At the intersection, Route 16 has four lanes on each approach, an exclusive left-turn lane and three through lanes. Washington Avenue has two lanes on its southbound approach, an exclusive left-turn and through/right-turn lanes. While the northbound approach has a single wide lane (about 20 feet wide) serving all traffic movements, during peak periods, drivers form two lanes (a left-turn lane and a through/right-turn lane) on that approach. The intersection has recently received geometric and traffic signal improvements. It is equipped with a new TS2, Type 1 signal controller, has an actuated and coordinated traffic-signal system, signal heads are mounted on overhead mast-arms and have retroreflective backplates. There are functioning pedestrian signals at all four corners of the intersection and crosswalks are provided on all legs of the intersection with new markings and wider median openings. In addition, the wheelchair ramps have detectable warning plates. The intersection handles high volumes of traffic on Route 16 and Everett Avenue and is congested during peak periods. The intersection curb radii are adequate for trucks. The land uses adjacent to the intersection are primarily commercial and residential.

3.2.10 Route 16 and Webster and Garfield Avenues Intersection

Webster and Garfield Avenues are city-owned streets that intersect Route 16 on a horizontal curve to form a four-leg signalized intersection (Figure 2). At the intersection, Route 16 has three through lanes on each approach and an exclusive left-turn lane on the westbound approach. Garfield and Webster Avenues have a single wide lane (20 feet wide) on each approach and drivers form two lanes in each of them (exclusive left-turn lane and through/right-turn lane). The intersection is equipped with a TCT LMD 9200 signal controller that operates as an actuated uncoordinated traffic-signal system. The signal heads are mounted on a mixture of a mast-arm and posts. Many of the signal heads do not have backplates and the signal lenses are a mixture of LED and incandescent sections. There are functioning pedestrian signals with pushbuttons at all four corners of the intersection, crosswalks on all legs of the intersection, and wheelchair ramps with detectable warning plates. The crosswalk markings are faded and the median openings are narrow. The intersection handles high volumes of traffic on Route 16 and Everett Avenue and it is congested during peak periods. The intersection curb radii are adequate for trucks. The land uses adjacent to the intersection are primarily commercial and residential.


Page 26 of 104

3.3 SIDEWALKS, CROSSWALKS, AND WHEELCHAIR RAMPS

Providing facilities to keep pedestrians and bicyclists safe and separated from vehicular traffic in this corridor is a high priority because of the high volume of traffic, high vehicle speeds, high volume of truck traffic, long crossing distances, and mixed land uses (residential, educational, commercial, and industrial).

3.3.1 Sidewalks

Figure 4 shows the sidewalk network on Route 16. Approximately 70 percent of the sidewalks either have surface or structural defects or are covered with vegetation and debris accumulation; thus, a significant portion of the roadway’s existing sidewalks need repair or reconstruction.12

3.3.2 Crosswalks

Many of the signalized intersections have crosswalks on all approaches but there are locations where pedestrians cross Route 16 without crosswalks. These locations include the following:

East leg of Route 16 at Second Street East leg of Route 16 at South Ferry Street East leg of Route 16 at Vale Street West leg of Route 16 at Boston Street West leg of Route 16 at Union Street

In addition, although traffic on South Ferry Street and Union Street are under signal control, their crosswalks are not under signal control. Furthermore, most of the crosswalk markings are worn and not visible. In addition, crosswalk openings in the median of Route 16 are narrow; at some locations, the median extends into the crosswalk blocking the path for pedestrians; and at other locations, there are no openings in the median such as in the following locations:

Second Street intersection Spring Street intersection Everett Avenue intersection Union Street intersection

12 The minimum width for a sidewalk is five feet excluding the width of the curb. The

measurement of a sidewalk sometimes includes the width of the curb. If this method of measurement is used, the minimum width of a sidewalk is 5.5 feet. In addition, sidewalks must have the necessary access features to comply with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.


Page 27 of 104

3.3.3 Wheelchair Ramps

Many of the wheelchair ramps lack detectable warning plates or horizontal and cross slopes are not constructed to MassDOT standards.

3.4 STREET LIGHTS

The light poles along the roadway are conventional lighting used in highway applications, which support luminaire-mounting heights ranging from approximately 30 feet to 50 feet. The light poles are aluminum with mast-arm. MassDOT uses only steel poles. Figure 5 shows the conditions of the existing streetlights. The majority of the light poles and fixtures are functioning well; however, a few of the light poles are missing or damaged (slanted, missing light fixture).

3.5 LAND USE

The area surrounding the roadway in Everett is primarily commercial, with hotels, retail stores, automobile repair and detailing shops, and restaurants. In Chelsea, it is primarily residential, although the Chelsea High School, Shore Educational Collaborative, Metro Credit, and many restaurants are located in the corridor. North of Route 16 in Chelsea and Everett, the neighborhoods are vibrant and densely settled with single and multi-family dwellings that are mixed with commercial retail services on Chelsea Street and Washington Avenue. Side streets such as Lewis Street, Second Street, Spring Street, South Ferry Street, Vine Street, Everett Avenue, Union Street, Washington Avenue, Garfield Avenue, and Webster Avenue connect Route 16 to the neighborhoods. The Summer Whittier Elementary School, Veteran Memorial Park, Jacob Scharf Playground, Washington Park, and Voke Park are located in this area. South of Route 16 in Chelsea and Everett is the industrial district. This district is served by a limited number of short and disconnected streets because the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Newburyport/Rockport commuter rail line runs through the area. Second Street and Everett Avenue are the only streets that cross the commuter rail line and have direct access to Route 16. Businesses in the industrial district include produce storage and distribution, packaging, scrap metal businesses, supermarkets, hotels, and automobile/truck repair services. Recently, the industrial district has been undergoing transformation to nonindustrial uses such as new housing, hotels, office, retail, and recreational uses. With the new Silver Line extension to Chelsea, the Encore Boston Harbor casino, and the Chelsea Greenway, it is expected that the current transformation


Page 28 of 104

will continue into the future. For instance, several long-term transit projects are proposed for the area to support development.


Page 29 of 104

Chapter 4—Planned Projects and Studies

Transportation projects planned for the Route 16 corridor and previous studies that addressed the study area or its surroundings are described below. The conceptual improvements developed in this study considered and incorporated recommendations from the previous studies.

4.1 RECONSTRUCTION OF FERRY STREET, SOUTH FERRY STREET, AND

A PORTION OF ELM STREET

MassDOT’s project number 607652 will reconstruct Ferry Street from the Malden city line to Route 16 and Elm Street between Ferry Street and Woodlawn Street.13 The work will include resurfacing, new sidewalks, wheelchair ramps, and curb extensions. The traffic signals at five locations and the fire station will be upgraded and the signals at Chelsea Street will be replaced by a roundabout. This project is funded through the MPO’s 2020 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

4.2 EVERETT: DECK REPLACEMENTS FOR SWEETSER CIRCLE BRIDGES

The scope of work for this MassDOT’s project number 608706 includes deck replacement and traffic safety upgrades. Substructure repairs will also be included. This project is in the preliminary stage.

4.3 SWEETSER CIRCLE IMPROVEMENTS

The City of Everett is leading a study to develop improvements for Sweetser Circle. The project goals are to develop the following improvements and strategies:

Facilitate bus rapid transit (BRT) on Route 99 Accommodate future Silver Line expansion Connect on-street bicycle facilities to the Northern Strand Community Trail Expand open and green spaces Connect Lower and Upper Broadway neighborhoods Improve pedestrian safety

The project would seek to convert proposed Sweetser Circle Bridge repair into a transformative project that would provide better connections for the Broadway BRT, Sliver Line, Northern Strand Community Trail, and Wellington Trail. This project is ongoing and in the preliminary stage.

13 MassDOT Project Information, information on MassDOT highway projects can be found at https://hwy.massdot.state.ma.us/projectinfo/projectinfo.asp

https://hwy.massdot.state.ma.us/projectinfo/projectinfo.asp


Page 30 of 104

4.4 EVERETT TRANSIT STUDY

The Everett Transit Action Plan was developed to identify short- and long-term solutions to improve transit for the Everett residents.14 The study was conducted because several recent planning initiatives in the region have resulted in the need for a comprehensive analysis of future transportation needs. The study developed feasible recommendations to address existing and future transit issues.

4.5 BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS: REVERE BEACH PARKWAY (ROUTE 16)

OVER THE MALDEN RIVER (WOODS MEMORIAL BRIDGE) AND OVER

MBTA AND RIVERS EDGE DRIVE

MassDOT’s project number 604660 will replace the existing nonoperating drawbridge with a new fixed bridge. This project is in construction, which ends in spring 2020.

4.6 RECONSTRUCTION OF BEACHAM STREET IN EVERETT

MassDOT’s project number 609257 will reconstruct Beacham Street to provide safety and operational improvements and will include roadway pavement reconstruction. The project will include improved traffic operations and safety, new signs and pavement markings, improved drainage, streetscape enhancements, and accommodations for pedestrians and bicycles. This project is at the preliminary design stage and construction will begin in summer 2024.

4.7 SILVER LINE/BRT CONSTRUCTION

MassDOT’s project number 604428 constructed a new BRT from Everett Avenue to Eastern Avenue along MassDOT ROW, formally Grand Junction Railroad ROW. The project created a two-lane busway with four new bus station platforms and reconstructed the Washington Avenue Bridge. The project was completed in spring 2019 and the Silver Line is in operation. The extension offers new dedicated BRT service connecting Chelsea to East Boston with the South Boston Waterfront (South Station and Seaport District). The four new BRT Stations are located at Eastern Avenue, Box District, Bellingham Square, and Chelsea near the local Market Basket. The line provides effective connection to key employment destinations in Boston taking about 7,000 passengers from Chelsea and Revere from congested roadways and overcrowded bus routes.

14 Everett Transit Action Plan, Final Report, November 2016


Page 31 of 104

4.8 CHELSEA GREENWAY

MassDOT’s project number 604428 constructed the Chelsea Greenway. As part of the Silver Line project, the Chelsea Greenway, a shared-use path, was built parallel to the Silver Line. The 0.65-mile multiuse path connects Downtown Chelsea and Eastern Avenue stations. Chelsea and Everett, along with advocates for active transportation, support plans to extend the Greenway to provide safe connections to support smart growth and development around the new transit services and connect to regional greenway network, including the Northern Strand Community Trail and the East Boston Greenway. The project has been completed and is operational.

4.9 BRIDGE BETTERMENT, ROUTE 1 OVER ARLINGTON STREET AND

5TH STREET/MBTA RAILROAD/SPRUCE STREET

MassDOT’s project number 605287 will rehabilitate the Route 1 Viaduct in Chelsea. This project is funded through the MPO’s 2019 TIP and construction ends in summer 2021.

4.10 RECONSTRUCTION ON WASHINGTON AVENUE FROM REVERE

BEACH PARKWAY TO HEARD STREET

This MassDOT project number 605974 will reconstruct Washington Avenue from the Revere Beach Parkway to the MBTA Bridge at Heard Street. The project will also build a new storm water management system separating the existing combined storm water and sewer system, replace the aging water main, and construct sidewalks and wheelchair ramps, and direct bicycles to appropriate accommodations. Two major intersections will be reconstructed: Washington Avenue at Forsyth Street/Gardner Street/Cary Avenue (Cary Square) and the intersection of Washington Avenue at Carter Street/County Road. This project is in the preliminary design stage.

4.11 RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 16 (REVERE BEACH PARKWAY) AND

WASHINGTON AVENUE

This project improves safety and traffic operation at the intersection as part of the mitigation improvements for Encore Boston Harbor casino. The project upgraded the traffic signal equipment, retimed the traffic signal, made geometric improvements including an exclusive southbound left turn lane, and improved accommodations for pedestrians to comply with ADA-standards. The project was completed in 2019.


Page 32 of 104

4.12 RECONSTRUCTION ON BROADWAY (ROUTE 107) FROM CITY HALL

AVENUE TO THE REVERE CITY LINE

The scope of work for MassDOT project number 608078 involves the reconstruction of a one-mile segment of Broadway. Improvements to the roadway will include surface and subsurface work and include replacement of utilities; construction of a dedicated bike lane; and upgrades to the existing sidewalk network that will include ADA-compliant ramps at all intersections. This project is funded through the 2022 TIP for the Boston Region MPO.

4.13 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT, ROUTE 16 AT GARFIELD AND WEBSTER

AVENUES

In July 2018, the City of Chelsea, in collaboration with MassDOT and the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), conducted a road safety audit (RSA) for the subject intersection.15 The RSA was conducted because the intersection was identified as a high-crash location based on the 2013–15 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) crash cluster data.16 The MassDOT Highway Division’s Traffic and Safety Engineering 25% Design Submission Guidelines require an RSA for all project-related high-crash locations to identify safety enhancements that may be implemented in conjunction with an off-site mitigation project, and other measures that could be programmed for implementation by other agencies or municipalities. The RSA recommended several short-, medium-, and long-term improvements to address safety and operations problems at the intersections. They included provisions for formalizing left-turn lanes on Garfield and Webster Avenue, modifying the signal phasing and timing plans, upgrading signal equipment, geometric enhancements, pavement markings, and new signage.

4.14 LOWER MYSTIC REGIONAL WORKING GROUP STUDY

In the recently completed Lower Mystic Regional Working Group (LMRWG) study, planning for improved transportation and mobility in the Sullivan Square area, several transit improvements and pedestrian and bicycle accommodations were proposed to reduce travel times, decrease congestion, increase access to jobs, and enhance quality of life.17

15 Road Safety Audit, (Revere Beach Parkway [Route 16] at Garfield Avenue/Webster Avenue, City of Chelsea), prepared for Massachusetts Department of Transportation, July 2018.

16 An HSIP crash cluster is a location in which the number and severity of crashes—as measured on the Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) index—ranks the location among the top 5 percent of crash clusters in the region. The EPDO method assigns weighted values to each crash based on whether the crash resulted in property damage (unweighted), injury (weighted by 5), or a fatality (weighted by 10).

17 Lower Mystic Regional Working Group, Planning for Improved Transportation and Mobility in the Sullivan Square Area, Fall 2018


Page 33 of 104

Chapter 5—Data Collection

5.1 DATA COLLECTION

MassDOT Highway Division’s Traffic Data Collection section conducted automatic traffic recorder (ATR) counts during a seven-day period from Tuesday, December 4, 2018, to Monday, December 10, 2018, and a recount for those locations where the count machines malfunctioned from Tuesday, April 23, 2019, to Monday, April 29, 2019.18 The ATR machines count vehicles continuously during the collection period and are used to determine the volume and hourly distribution of traffic on a roadway. MassDOT Highway Division's Traffic Data Collection section also collected turning-movement counts (TMC) in the study area on Thursday, December 6, 2018. MassDOT performed TMCs at 11 intersections on the Route 16 corridor, conducting the counts during the weekday AM peak travel period (6:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and weekday PM peak travel period (3:00 PM to 6:00 PM). MassDOT performed a second count on Saturday, December 8 and Sunday, December 9 at these locations in order to capture weekend volumes. The weekend counts were conducted during the midday peak period (11:00 AM to 2:00 PM). In all cases, MassDOT recorded heavy vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles separately.

5.2 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Figure 6 shows a summary of the average weekday traffic data recorded using the MassDOT counts. The amount of daily traffic ranges between 38,000 to 70,000 vehicles per day. The counts show that traffic gradually increases toward the west end of the corridor as drivers turn onto Route 16 to access various Boston destinations and beyond. This occurs mainly on side streets at Garfield and Webster Avenues, Washington Avenue, Everett Avenue, Vine Street, and Second Street. Notably, the counts indicate that there is little difference between weekday and weekend volumes, based in part on the regional traffic present on Route 16. Appendix B contains full records of the ATR counts.

5.3 DAILY TRUCK VOLUMES

Figure 7 shows a summary of the average weekday truck data recorded using the MassDOT counts and data from the 2016 Freight Planning Support

18 All of the traffic data used in this study were collected before the Encore Boston Harbor

opened.


Page 34 of 104

memorandum.19 The amount of daily truck traffic on Route 16 ranges between 3 percent and 5 percent. Second Street serves most of the trucks to and from the industrial area. More than 1,600 trucks use Second Street daily, which comprise about 12 percent of its daily traffic. Appendix B contains full records of the truck counts.

5.4 TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES

Figure 8 shows the turning movement volumes at the 11 intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Peak hours in the corridor were recorded as 6:30 AM to 7:30 AM in the morning and 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM in the afternoon peak. The afternoon volumes were remarkably consistent and stayed within 4 percent of the highest peak volumes throughout the entire afternoon collection period. This kind of “peak spreading” is a common characteristic of urban roadways where demand exceeds available capacity. Figure 9 shows the weekend midday turning-movement volumes at the 11 intersections. The highest volumes were observed between 12:30 PM and 1:30 PM, during which time the total intersection volumes were 4 percent lower than during the weekday PM peak hour. Appendix B contains the turning movement data.

5.5 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE VOLUMES

The TMC data were also used to provide staff with information about pedestrian and bicyclist activity during the three-hour collection periods. Figure 10 cites the observed pedestrian volumes and Figure 11 cites the observed bicyclist volumes (bicycle on the road only). Table 1 distinguishes the number of pedestrians that crossed Route 16 from those that crossed an adjacent side street on the north or south side of Route 16. The counts show that pedestrian activity is highest at Washington Avenue intersection, which is also an HSIP pedestrian crash cluster. The counts show that pedestrian activity is moderate at the following Route 16 intersections: Garfield and Webster Avenues, Everett Avenue, Vine Street, and Lewis Street. The Sumner Whitter Elementary School and Chelsea High School generate some of the pedestrian traffic at Lewis Street and Everett Avenue. Counts of bicycles on the road were very low on weekdays and weekends. MPO staff attributes the low cyclist volumes primarily to the absence of appropriate

19 Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization, Freight Planning Support, FFY 2014:

Improving Truck Travel in the Everett-Chelsea Industrial Area, Technical Memorandum, dated January 21, 2016.


Page 35 of 104

facilities in the corridor, cold December weather, high volumes of traffic, and high speeds of vehicles, which create high stress and safety concerns.

Table 1 Peak Period Pedestrian Crossing Types

Route

16

Side Street on the North

Side Street on the South

Route 16



Route 16



Route 16



Route 16 Intersection

Thurs AM

Thurs AM

Thurs AM

Thurs PM

Thurs PM

Thurs PM

Sat PM

Sat PM

Sat PM

Sun PM

Sun PM

Sun PM

Lewis Street 73 26 7 54 13 17 18 5 16 12 6 13 Second Street 12 10 10 30 11 15 21 7 11 16 5 7 Spring Street 5 9 8 19 20 12 6 14 24 20 9 33 South Ferry Street 4 20 0 16 18 0 4 19 0 6 18 0 Vine Street 44 8 15 72 10 16 40 14 14 26 7 5 Vale Street 14 0 36 25 0 29 7 0 10 13 0 12 Boston Street 3 0 15 10 0 7 3 0 9 3 0 3 Everett Avenue 41 4 16 88 15 32 44 5 9 34 4 11 Union Street 3 6 0 3 14 0 2 3 0 2 10 0 Washington Street 148 14 2 139 24 4 56 6 4 61 19 0 Garfield/ Webster Avenues 41 2 1 86 4 3 42 6 0 55 9 0 Weekday AM = 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM. Weekday PM = 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Weekend PM 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM. Shading denotes that a crosswalk is absent on Route 16 at this location. Source: Central Transportation Planning Staff.

5.6 SPOT SPEED DATA

Staff collected vehicle spot speeds at three of the ATR sites on Route 16. The spot speeds measure speeds at a specific point and do not include delays at the intersections when traveling through the corridor. Figure 12 summarizes the spot speed data and compares it with the posted speed regulations, which is 35 mph throughout the study area. The 85th percentile speeds are higher than the posted speed limits because of the high speeds of vehicles during the off-peak periods. Actual travel speeds in the corridor are much lower than the spot speeds because they include delays at the intersections. Figure 12 also shows the travels speeds during the PM peak travel, which are about one-half of the posted speed limit (14–18 mph), reflecting congestion and delay at the signalized intersections. It is expressed as speed index, which is equal to the average travel speed divided by the posted speed limit. Speed index indicates congestion more accurately than travel speeds alone because low travel speeds may be the


Page 36 of 104

results of low speed limits on certain facilities. Appendix B contains more information about speed data.

5.7 SIGNAL TIMING AND COORDINATION DATA

MassDOT Highway District 4 provided MPO staff with existing signal timings, as-built traffic signal plans, and signal-phase sequences of the signalized intersections (included in Appendix C). The signal information included that collected from field assessment of the signal systems as part of the DCR conditional assessment.20 MPO staff used Google Maps and field visits to identify recent modifications to the intersection layouts and signal plans in order to analyze the condition of existing traffic operations.

5.8 CRASH DATA

To evaluate safety for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists in the study area, MPO staff used crash data from MassDOT’s Registry of Motor Vehicles database from January 2012 through December 2016. During the five-year analysis period, 657 crashes were recorded in the MassDOT database. Figure 13 shows the HSIP intersection crash clusters and spatial distribution of these crashes within the study area. Many locations in the study area experienced a greater-than-expected number of crashes. Five intersections are on the list of the Top 200 high-crash location in Massachusetts, seven intersections (including the five top 200 high-crash locations) are on the list of HSIP crash clusters. Table 2 is a summary of the crashes. Appendix D contains figures and tables that break down the crash data. Some features of the crashes include the following:

No fatal crashes, but the injury rate was very high: 35 percent of crashes resulted in injury to at least one of the involved parties.

Thirty-five percent of all crashes were rear-ends and 32 percent were angle crashes. Many of the rear-end and angle crashes may be caused by congestion and drivers running red lights, which is common at the signalized intersections in the corridor.

Forty percent of crashes took place during peak period (defined as 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM).

Twenty-six crashes involved a pedestrian and six crashes involved a bicyclist.

Eighty-five percent of crashes took place at an intersection. Fifteen percent of crashes took place along an open roadway segment.

20 Conditional Assessment Report, Medford Veterans Memorial Highway/Revere Beach

Parkway/Route 16, The Fellsway Segment 1, and the Lynnway, Medford, Everett, Chelsea, Revere, Lynn, and Somerville Massachusetts, prepared for Massachusetts Department of Transportation, by VHB, Inc., August 2018


Page 37 of 104

Table 2 Route 16 Crash Statistics (Five-Year Crash Summary)

Crash Variable All Crashes Crash Severity

Nonfatal injury 229 Property damage only (none injured) 404 Not Reported 24

Manner of Collision Rear-end 229 Angle 212 Sideswipe, same direction 105 Single vehicle crash 89 Head-on 19 Sideswipe, opposite direction 3

Road Surface Conditions Dry 539 Wet 103 Snow/Ice 14 Unknown 1

Ambient Light Conditions Daylight 380 Dark—lighted roadway 250 Dusk 11 Dawn 7 Dark—roadway not lighted 7 Not reported 2

Weather Conditions Clear 421 Cloudy 79 Rain 68 Snow 10 Unknown 79

Travel Period Off-peak 396 Peak 261

Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes Vehicle crashes 626 Pedestrian-related crashes 26 Bicycle-related crashes 6

Crash Location Intersection 557 Segment 100

Total crashes 657 Peak Periods are 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM Monday through Friday. Source: Central Transportation Planning Staff.


Page 38 of 104

5.9 TRANSIT SERVICES DATA

The study area is located in the middle of several transit services; however, there is no bus service on Route 16 within the study limits. Three bus services (Routes 110, 111, and 112) cross the roadway at Everett Avenue and Washington Avenue but they do not serve the commercial, industrial, and residential uses along the corridor. The Newburyport/Rockport Commuter Rail Station has a station in Chelsea, about half a mile away. In addition, Wellington Station on the Orange Line and the Wellington Station Busway, which serves several buses (Routes 90, 97, 99, 100, 106, 108, 110,112, 134, and 710), are located less than one mile away from the western limits of the corridor. Appendix E contains the bus schedules and map showing the stops. The MBTA bus Route 110, which serves Wonderland or Broadway and Park Avenue-Wellington Station, operates through the area in Everett on Broadway, Chelsea Street, and Ferry Street. It provides bus service to Bell Circle, Revere Centre, Woodlawn, Everett Square, Sweetser Circle, Orange Line, Blue Line, and Haverhill Commuter Rail. Buses run Monday through Friday every 15 to 20 minutes from 4:55 AM to 12:35 AM; every 35 minutes on Saturdays from 5:00 AM to 12:37 AM; and every hour on Sundays from 5:00 AM to 12:32 AM. MBTA bus Route 111, which serves Woodlawn or Broadway and Park Avenue-Haymarket Station, operates through the area in Chelsea on Washington, Sagamore, and Garfield Avenues. It provides bus service to Chelsea Square, Bellingham Square, Cary Square, Green Line, and Orange Line. Buses run Monday through Friday every 10 minutes from 4:44 AM to 12:34 AM, and 10 to 15 minutes on Saturdays and Sundays from 6:15 AM to 10:35 AM. MBTA bus Route 112, which serves Wellington Station/Wood Island Station, operates through the area on Everett Avenue and Chelsea Street. It provides bus service to Everett Square, Admiral’s Hill, Market Basket, Bellingham Square, Quigley Hospital, Blue Line Station, Orange Line Station, and the Newburyport/Rockport Commuter Rail Station in Chelsea. Buses run Monday through Saturday every 45 minutes from 6:20 AM to 7:00 PM, and hourly on Sundays from 8:30 AM to 7:00 PM.


Page 39 of 104

Chapter 6—Existing Conditions Analyses

6.1 SAFETY ANALYSIS

6.1.1 HSM Methodology: Predicted and Expected Crashes

MPO staff used methods outlined in the 2010 edition of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) to analyze safety. The techniques in the HSM combine roadway geometry, traffic volumes, crash history, and regional factors into a unified metric referred to as expected crashes, that estimates the intrinsic safety conditions at a site by compensating for the random fluctuations typically associated with samples of crash data. Expected crashes may be categorized several ways, such as by manner of collision or degree of injury; and may be converted into dollar values based on agreed-upon societal cost figures for different types of crashes. They may be used to identify high-risk sites with potential for improvement, and to compare the relative merits of different intervention strategies.21 The HSM methodology had previously been the subject of research by MassDOT in cooperation with faculty from University of Massachusetts Lowell. The result of this study was to refine the formulas and coefficients of the HSM methodology for intersections to match Massachusetts traffic data better. MPO staff used these regionalized versions of the HSM methods for its analysis of intersections.22 The HSM procedure requires that a corridor be broken down into intersections and segments as each type of facility is analyzed with a distinct method. For each intersection and each segment, the number of expected crashes during a five-year period is shown along with number of crashes that MassDOT recorded between 2012 and 2016. This comparison provides insight into the responsiveness of a particular location to potential safety interventions. If the predicted number of crashes (crashes per year under idealized circumstances) is significantly less than the expected number of crashes, it suggests that correctable factors are elevating the crash rate. The difference between these two terms is referred to as the Potential for Safety Improvement (PSI). Figure 14 summarizes results of the existing-conditions safety analysis. Table 3 shows the numerical values of the PSI for the different intersections and segments (shaded green) within the corridor. It shows the 11 intersections and four segments into

21 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Highway Safety Manual

2010, Washington, DC, December 2010. 22 Yuanchang Xie and Chen (Julian) Chen, Calibration of Safety Performance Functions for

Massachusetts Urban and Suburban Intersections. Report prepared for Massachusetts Department of Transportation Office of Transportation Planning, March 2016.


Page 40 of 104

which MPO staff divided the corridor, and site locations in green with PSI less than 0; yellow for PSI between 0 and 1; and red for PSI greater than 1. It also shows the high-risk site designation, which is a statistical comparison with

· 2020-01-02 · route 16 priority corridor study chelsea and everett, massachusetts project...

Documents